Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Clinton v Jeffers

Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States
in Clinton vs Jeffers No. 90-394 (1990)

on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989)
(three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991)


The three-judge district court held in December 1989 that Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973.

Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that "violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas."

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win."

Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.

The court therefore concluded that

This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of racial motivation is inescapable.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Jones v Clinton

INTENIONAL TORTS
Battery
Assault
False Imprisonment
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – A person is liable for IIED if:
I. Intentional (Samms) OR reckless (Taylor) conduct:
a. With the purpose of infliction emotional distress, OR
b. i) Any reasonable person would’ve known emotional distress would
result (Samms)
ii) Sufficiently severe to cause genuine and substantial emotional distress or mental harm to average persons (Taylor)
A) Cannot recover for idiosyncratic emotional distress (Taylor)
B) If the distress arises out of conduct relating to race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, military service, or nationality, the average person standard must be adapted to reflect those characteristics of the pl. that are the focus of the alleged discrimination (Taylor)
C) In Logan v. Sears Roebuck the standard is a person of ordinary sensibilities – no change for race, creed, etc…
II. Actions or conduct are: outrageous and intolerable (Samms)
extreme and outrageous (Taylor)
a. Because the act offends the generally accepted standards of decency (Samms)
i. A single racial slur by a stranger on the street is insufficient
ii. A single racial slur by a superior could be sufficient
b. Conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society (Logan v. Sears Roebuck; Jones v. Clinton)
i. Determined by: (Jones v. Clinton)
A) The conduct at issue
B) The period of time over which the conduct took place
C) The relationship between pl. and def.
D) Def.’s knowledge that pl. is particularly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental peculiarity
c. The law does not recognize recovery for mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities (Logan v. Sears Roebuck)
III. Actions or conduct caused severe emotional distress (Ford v. Revlon; Jones v. Clinton)
IV. Conduct caused emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could/should be expected to endure it (Taylor v. Metzger; Jones v. Clinton)

Jones v Clinton

INTENIONAL TORTS
Battery
Assault
False Imprisonment
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – A person is liable for IIED if:
I. Intentional (Samms) OR reckless (Taylor) conduct:
a. With the purpose of infliction emotional distress, OR
b. i) Any reasonable person would’ve known emotional distress would
result (Samms)
ii) Sufficiently severe to cause genuine and substantial emotional distress or mental harm to average persons (Taylor)
A) Cannot recover for idiosyncratic emotional distress (Taylor)
B) If the distress arises out of conduct relating to race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, military service, or nationality, the average person standard must be adapted to reflect those characteristics of the pl. that are the focus of the alleged discrimination (Taylor)
C) In Logan v. Sears Roebuck the standard is a person of ordinary sensibilities – no change for race, creed, etc…
II. Actions or conduct are: outrageous and intolerable (Samms)
extreme and outrageous (Taylor)
a. Because the act offends the generally accepted standards of decency (Samms)
i. A single racial slur by a stranger on the street is insufficient
ii. A single racial slur by a superior could be sufficient
b. Conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society (Logan v. Sears Roebuck; Jones v. Clinton)
i. Determined by: (Jones v. Clinton)
A) The conduct at issue
B) The period of time over which the conduct took place
C) The relationship between pl. and def.
D) Def.’s knowledge that pl. is particularly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental peculiarity
c. The law does not recognize recovery for mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities (Logan v. Sears Roebuck)
III. Actions or conduct caused severe emotional distress (Ford v. Revlon; Jones v. Clinton)
IV. Conduct caused emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could/should be expected to endure it (Taylor v. Metzger; Jones v. Clinton)

Search for
Get a Free Search Engine for Your Web Site

Web Site Counter
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com
1-Hit Search Engine Optimization and Search Engine Submission
Click Here Subscribe with Bloglines Listed in LS Blogs Blog Directory & Search engineWeb Counter Site Meter